David J. Hardisty, UBC Sauder

Movie star kisses and electric shocks: The sign effect in past and future discounting
David J. Hardisty, UBC Sauder Washington University Olin Business School Jan 25, 2019 Thanks for having me here, it’s an honor!!! This talk is actually a combination of two papers. Some of it is stuff that I have been working on for a long time, and some of it is brand new data that nobody has seen before. Both of these papers are in the review process and I would really appreciate your comments, so please interrupt. You may have noticed “past discounting” in the title…

Co-authors Shane Frederick Sarah Molouki Elke Weber Eugene Caruso

Temporal Discounting We care less about the future
Good things -> Now Bad things -> Later Sign effect: We want to have good things now more strongly than we want to postpone bad things (Mischel, Grusec, & Masters, 1969; Thaler, 1981; Bilgin & LeBoeuf, 2010) You are on the airplane. Drink cart now or later? Writing letters of recommendation now or later? Sign effect was first found in Walter Michel’s studies on children, and later formalized by Thaler

The Sign Effect: Across Domains
Discount rates (Hardisty & Weber, 2009): Dollar gains: 38% Environmental gains: 38% Health gains: 57% Dollar losses: 7% Environmental losses: 11% Health losses: -1% Super robust

What causes the sign effect?
Loss aversion Vs. Contemplation utility (also: time perception and uncertainty) (Also: uncertainty, time perceptions. Probably multiply determined.)

Loss Aversion? Loss aversion (Tversky & Kahneman 1991): losses weigh twice as much as gains (See also : Baumeister et al 2001; Rozin & Royzman 2001) Magnitude effect (Thaler 1981): lower discount rates for larger outcomes Sign effect = loss aversion + magnitude effect? (Loewenstein & Prelec, 1992; Baucells & Bellezza 2017)

Loss Aversion? Real choices (unpublished data):
Receive $70 now or $70 in a month? 100% choose now Pay $70 now or $70 in a month? 47% choose later Receive $140 now or $140 in a month? 100% choose now Pay $35 now or $35 in a month? 50% choose later

Contemplation Utility?
We derive pleasure and pain from contemplating future and past events (Loewenstein 1987; Baucells & Bellezza 2017) Contemplation utility Anticipation utility (“savoring”, “dread”, “impatience”) Recall utility (“nostalgia”, “elation”, “regret”, “disappointment”) Lowers discount rates

Kiss from a movie star: when? (Loewenstein, 1987)
“Normal” Discounting -> Now Contemplation Utility -> Later

Scheduling a dental procedure
“Normal” Discounting -> Later Contemplation Utility -> Now

Contemplation Utility?
Asymmetry Some evidence for “dread” (Berns et al 2006; Harris 2012) Not much evidence for “savoring” This asymmetry may drive the sign effect

Kiss from a movie star (Loewenstein 1987; N=30)
Error bars show 95% CI

Kiss from a movie star (Replication; N=206)

Overview Paper 1: Contemplation utility and the sign effect in the future Paper 2: Compare the future vs the past

Hypotheses H1: Contemplation of future negatives is stronger and more impactful than contemplation of future positives H2: Contemplation utility predicts consumer time preferences H3a: Contemplation utility mediates the sign effect H3b: Wiping out contemplation utility wipes out the sign effect H4: When controlling for loss aversion, H1-H3 remain strong H5: Contemplation of future positive events is a mixed experience, but contemplation of future negative events just feels bad

Study 1: Contemplating payment plans vs rebates
N=200 Mturkers 2 (sign: positive vs negative) x 2 (magnitude: small vs large) between-subjects design Scenario: “Imagine that you need to buy a new pair of glasses, and you have narrowed your choice down to two pairs, from two different brands. They are virtually identical in appearance and quality, but they offer different pricing plans.”

Positive condition: Brand A costs $122. Brand B includes a rebate. It costs $142 now, but you would receive a $30 rebate in the mail after one month. Which would you choose? Brand A: pay $122 now Brand B: pay $142 now, and receive $30 in one month Negative condition: Brand A includes a payment plan. It costs $122 now, and you would pay an additional bill of $30 after one month. Brand B costs $142. Which would you choose? Brand A: pay $122 now, and pay $30 in one month Brand B: pay $142 now

Positive condition: Brand A costs $61. Brand B includes a rebate. It costs $71 now, but you would receive a $15 rebate in the mail after one month. Which would you choose? Brand A: pay $61 now Brand B: pay $71 now, and receive $15 in one month Negative condition: Brand A includes a payment plan. It costs $61 now, and you would pay an additional bill of $15 after one month. Brand B costs $71. Which would you choose? Brand A: pay $61 now, and pay $15 in one month Brand B: pay $71 now

Experience Utility Imagine receiving a check for $30 [paying a bill of $30] in one month. Would experiencing this event be pleasurable or displeasurable? (1=pleasurable, 2=displeasurable) Imagine receiving a check for $30 [paying a bill of $30] in one month. How strongly would experiencing this event affect your feelings at that time? (0=Not at all, 50=Strongly, 100=Extremely) (McGraw et al, 2010)

Contemplation Utility
Imagine expecting to receive a check for $30 [pay a bill of $30] in one month. If this event were one month away, would the anticipation be psychologically pleasurable or displeasurable? In other words, how would you feel while waiting for it? (1=like the feeling of waiting, -1=dislike the feeling of waiting) Imagine expecting to receive a check for $30 [pay a bill of $30] in one month. How strongly would anticipating this event affect your feelings while waiting for the event? (0=Not at all, 50=Strongly, 100=Extremely)

Unusualness In your own life, how common are each of the following events? (0=Extremely rare, 100=Extremely Common) Receiving around $30 Receiving around $15 Paying around $30 Paying around $15

Study 1: Proportion choosing “impatient” Brand A
Rebate Bill $15 42% 8% $30 56% 10% sign, b=2.11, SE=0.59, Wald χ2(1)=12.69, p<.001 magnitude, b=0.25, SE=0.70, Wald χ2(1)=0.12, p=.73 interaction, b=0.31, SE=0.81, Wald χ2(1)=0.14, p=.71

Study 1: Contemplation Utility
Mediation: Sign->Contemplation->Brand Choice b=.38, SE=.14, CI95 [.17, .74]

Study 1: Controlling for Loss Aversion
Method 1: include experience utility in the analyses, all key tests remain significant, p=.001 or lower Method 2: compare $15 bill condition with the $30 rebate condition , all key tests remain significant, p=.002 or lower

Study 1: Commonness Small bills were judged to be more common than receiving small amounts of money More common things were contemplated slightly more strongly, r=.14, p=.05 Commonness did not predict time preferences

Study 1: Summary & Discussion
Consumers care about future payments more than future rebates Contemplation of losses is negative, contemplation of gains near zero Contemplation predicts choices Even when controlling for loss aversion Self-report can be unreliable Let’s manipulate contemplation, and measure real behavior

Study 2: Contemplating Retirement

Study 2: Facebook Field Study
Facebook allows AB Testing! Advertisement Design: 2 (sign: pos vs neg) x 2 (contemplation message: absent vs present) Budget: $50 per ad over 5 days total. N (“reach”) = 28,568 DVs: click-through-rate (CTR) cost per click For facebook ads: there are some constraints of course. Also: make sure the ad score is the same in each conditions

Study 2: Facebook Settings
age 19-64 location Canada language English all devices bid cap $1 optimization: link clicks bid strategy: lowest cost

Study 2: contemplation msg absent

Study 2: contemplation msg present

Study 2: Facebook Results (CTR)
Positive Frame Negative Frame Contemplation msg absent 1.84% 2.03% Contemplation msg present 2.58% 3.63%

Study 2: Facebook Results (CPC)
Positive Frame Negative Frame Contemplation msg absent $0.30 $0.31 Contemplation msg present $0.25 $0.18

Study 2: Summary Consumers care about future retirement expenses more than future retirement benefits This is especially true when contemplation is emphasized

Study 3: Controlling for Loss Aversion
106 participants from Amazon MTurk Dynamically identify subjectively equivalent gains and losses for each subject Compare anticipation for these subjectively equivalent pairs

Accept this pair of events?
50% chance of receiving 25 dollars AND 50% chance of paying 25 dollars Yes Unsure No

[50% chance of receiving $49]
Study 3: Stimulus Please consider the following event: [50% chance of receiving $49] Assuming this event would definitely happen to you and you knew it were coming, when would you prefer it to happen? Immediately OR in one week

Immediately OR in one week
Study 3: Stimulus Please consider the following event: [50% chance of paying $25] Assuming this event would definitely happen to you and you knew it were coming, when would you prefer it to happen? Immediately OR in one week

[get a free, relaxing massage for 50 minutes]
Study 3: Stimulus Please consider the following event: [get a free, relaxing massage for 50 minutes] Assuming this event would definitely happen to you and you knew it were coming, when would you prefer it to happen? Immediately OR in one week

[spend time stuck in horrible traffic for 45 minutes]
Study 3: Stimulus Please consider the following event: [spend time stuck in horrible traffic for 45 minutes] Assuming this event would definitely happen to you and you knew it were coming, when would you prefer it to happen? Immediately OR in one week

[a complimentary dinner at a restaurant of your choice]
Study 3: Stimulus Please consider the following event: [a complimentary dinner at a restaurant of your choice] Assuming this event would definitely happen to you and you knew it were coming, when would you prefer it to happen? Immediately OR in one week

[endure 10 mild (and harmless) electric shocks]
Study 3: Stimulus Please consider the following event: [endure 10 mild (and harmless) electric shocks] Assuming this event would definitely happen to you and you knew it were coming, when would you prefer it to happen? Immediately OR in one week

Time preferences Gains Losses Now 79% 57% In one week 21% 43%

Pleasurable experience OR unpleasurable experience
Study 3: Stimulus 2.a. Please imagine this event happening one week from now. Would experiencing this event be pleasurable or unpleasurable? Pleasurable experience OR unpleasurable experience 2.b. How strongly would experiencing this event affect your feelings at that time? not at all strongly extremely | | (Wording based on McGraw et al, 2010)

Like the feeling of waiting OR Dislike the feeling of waiting
Study 3: Stimulus 3.a. If this event were one week away, would the anticipation be psychologically pleasurable or unpleasurable? In other words, how would you feel while waiting for it? Like the feeling of waiting OR Dislike the feeling of waiting 3.b. How strongly would anticipating this event affect your feelings while waiting for the event? not at all strongly extremely | |

Utility for experience and anticipation

Study 4: Why asymmetric? Hypothesis
We enjoy contemplating future gains We dislike contemplating future gains We dislike contemplating future losses BUT: We rarely enjoy contemplating future losses

Study 4: Methods 105 participants from Amazon MTurk
10 positive & 10 negative events Time preference Two questions for anticipation: …how pleasurable or happy would the anticipation be? …how displeasurable or unhappy would the anticipation be?

Study 4 Results

Study 5: Contemplating Jellybeans
Perhaps contemplation of real events is different in important ways 2nd goal: Rule out demand characteristics How can we give matched positive and negative experiences in the lab?

Study 5: Methods Randomly assigned to “Dirt” or “Toasted marshmallow” flavor jellybean (pretested) (Jellybeans visible in the experimental room) Everyone must wait one week to eat the jellybean Rated predicted experience utility and anticipation utility

Study 6: Eliminating contemplation
Wiping out contemplation should wipe out the sign effect Design: 2 (pos vs neg) x 2 (choose for self vs other) between subjects, N=175 undergraduates Jellybean flavors: Glazed Blueberry Cake (Good-tasting with sweet aftertaste) French Vanilla (Good-tasting with sweet aftertaste) Soap (Bad-tasting, soapy flavor with sweet aftertaste) Black Pepper (Bad-tasting, spicy flavor with sweet aftertaste)

Study 6: choosing “immediately”
Good Flavor Bad Flavor Choose for self 73% 81% Choose for other 58%

Study 6: “discounting” Good Flavor Bad Flavor Choose for self 73% 19%
Choose for other 58% 42%

Study 7: Exploring Contemplation
Why is contemplation mixed for gains and unipolar for losses? Mturkers (N=100) will see photos of puppies or cockroaches How certain are you that you will see these photos? How certain are you about how you will react to the photos? Please consider your uncertainty about the photos. How does the uncertainty make you feel? When you think about the photos, do you feel like in some sense, they belong to you? In other words, that they are your due?

Study 7: Results Summary
People dislike feelings of uncertainty about future puppies AND future cockroaches Feelings about uncertainty are strongly correlated with contemplation utility, r = .51, p < .001 People feel are more prone to feel endowed with future puppies than future cockroaches Mental endowment correlated with contemplation utility (reverse scored for losses) r = -.30, p < .01

Paper 2: The sign effect in past and future discounting

Paper 2: Future vs Past, A critical test of the sign effect
We discount past events, even more than future events (Caruso, Gilbert, & Wilson, 2008) Sign effect in the past? Loss aversion account: Sign effect should be the same in the past Contemplation account: Sign effect should be reduced or eliminated in the past

Overview Study 1: Discounting and contemplation of hypothetical events
Study 2: Contemplation of real jellybeans Study 3 (summary): Fancier version of Study 1 Study 4 (if time): The role of uncertainty

Study 1a Sign x Tense with money

Study 1a: Methods 184 Mturkers 2 (gain vs loss) x 2 (future vs past)
Within subjects, counterbalanced Gains (~$10) twice as big as losses (~$5)

Study 1a: Contemplation Utility

Study 1a: Discounting Results

Study 1a: Contemplation Utility Results

Study 1a: Mediation

Sign x Tense with hedonic events
Study 1b Sign x Tense with hedonic events

Study 1b: Methods 186 Mturkers Same design as Study 1a Stimuli:
Pos: receiving a pleasant 1 hour massage Neg: receiving an unpleasant (but non-harmful) 1 minute electric shock

Study 1b: Discounting

Study 1b: Contemplation utility

Study 1b: Mediation

Study 1: Discussion Sign effect eliminated in past discounting
Contemplation utility: shows a similar pattern Mediates the sign X tense interaction Study 2: Real outcomes Rule out demand/consistency effects Why is contemplation utility of future gains so low? Contemplation of future positives is a mixed experience Contemplation of other events is unipolar

Study 2: Real Events Story here about attempting shocks and massages

Study 2: Stimuli

Study 2: Methods 100 university students 2x3 design:
Flavor: pos vs neg, between subjects Time: future vs present vs past, within subjects: T1: Predicted experience and current anticipation 15 minutes filler tasks T2: Rate experience 15 minutes filler T3: Remembered experience and current recall utility

Study 2: Methods T1 The flavor you have been assigned to is: dirt_____ 15 minutes from now, you will be eating this jelly bean.

T1 Experience prediction

T1 Contemplation utility

T2 Experience ratings

T3 Experience Memory

T3 Contemplation Utility

Study 2 Results: Contemplation Utility

Study 2 Results: Contemplation Utility
Flavor: Good Bad Good Bad *** *** *** n.s.

Study 2: Experience Utility and Contemplation Utility
Time X valence A) Contemplation Utility B) Predicted or recalled experience Difference between A and B Correlation between A and B Future positive 0.87 7.67 d = 0.76, p <.001 r = .26 Future negative 6.31 6.75 d = 0.06, p >.250 r = .50 Past positive 6.02 7.87 d = 0.32, p =.030 r = .67 Past negative 6.57 7.47 d = 0.03, p >.250 r = .75

Study 2: Discussion Contemplation of future positive is a mixed experience Contemplation of future negative is a negative experience Contemplation of past positives and negatives are unipolar

Alternative explanations
Study 3 Alternative explanations

Study 3: Methods Similar design to Study 1: N = 400 MTurkers
Future vs past Positive vs negative Money vs hedonic N = 400 MTurkers

Study 3: Methods Individually titrate loss aversion. Median results:
$10 gain = $5 loss 60 minute massage = 10 second electric shock A dynamic measure of discounting with greater range and precision (ToAD, Yoon & Chapman 2016) Measured alternative processes: Connection to future/past self Thought frequency Measure and adjusted for utility curvature

Study 3: Financial Utility Curvature

Study 3: Hedonic Utility Curvature
Seconds of electric shock Minutes of massage

Study 3: Summary of Results
Key results replicated: Discount rates Contemplation utility Mediation Adjusting for utility curvature: no effect Connection to distant self & thought frequency: Predict discount rates Do not explain the sign X tense interaction

Study 4: Uncertainty Uncertainty could also explain the sign effect:
People are risk averse for both gains and losses in intertemporal choice (Hardisty & Pfeffer, 2017) The future is unavoidably uncertain -> sign effect The past is more certain -> sign effect is wiped out

Study 4: Methods 201 Mturkers told they will look at 10 photos of puppies or cockroaches (between-subjects), in 5 minutes “How certain are you that you will see the [puppy] photos?” “How certain are you about how much you will like or dislike the [puppy] photos? In other words, how certain are you about how you will react to the [puppy] photos?” “Please consider your uncertainty about the [puppy] photos. How does the uncertainty make you feel?” 0=I strongly dislike the feeling of uncertainty, 100=I strongly like the feeling of uncertainty

Study 4: Methods Time preference Contemplation utility
5 min distractor task

Study 4: Methods 5 min distractor task Past uncertainty questions
Past time preference Past contemplation utility Need for Cognitive Closure (NFC) Ambiguity Tolerance (MSTAT)

Study 4 Results: Time Prefs
Cockroach Puppy Prosp Now Pref 80% 52% Retro Now Pref 27% 49%

Study 4 Results: Contemplation
Also: mediation with contemplation utility replicates

Uncertainty Results The future is more uncertain than the past
this does not predict time preferences People weren’t as sure about their reaction to past cockroaches this does not predict time preference We don’t like feelings of uncertainty about puppies or cockroaches This predicts contemplation utility This does not predict time preferences Uncertainty attitude (NFC, MSTAT) predicts contemplation utility, but not time preferences

Conclusions We discount gains more than losses in the future, but not in the past The sign effect is NOT explained by loss aversion The sign effect is partly explained by differences in contemplation utility: Anticipation of future positive events is a mixed emotion Recall of past positive events feels good Contemplation of future and past losses always feels bad

Thank you!

David J. Hardisty, UBC Sauder

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "David J. Hardisty, UBC Sauder"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

David J. Hardisty, UBC Sauder

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "David J. Hardisty, UBC Sauder"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback